Page 347 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That essentially was what Mr Humphries said in his remarks. I thank the Opposition for not playing politics on that issue, because it would have been a very easy one to play politics on. There was support from the Law Society. Playing that card would really have reflected on the way we see ourselves in this Assembly.
This legislation is legislation that, one would hope, will never be called upon. Today, fortuitously, we were able to say in question time that we have resolved the issue of the Magistrates Court building, and now the physical infrastructure of the courts in this Territory for the long-term future is clear. We will build our magistrates and tribunals complex on Vernon Circle. It will be linked to the Supreme Court building by a plaza. When the Magistrates Court building is finished the magistrates will move out of half of the existing Supreme Court building. That will allow us then to gut that half of the building, to provide appropriate facilities for the judges and appropriate facilities for juries, which we now do not have. We will take the opportunity then to refocus the entrance point for the Supreme Court building to the plaza facing the Magistrates Court. We will have, in the long term, a court precinct of physical facilities that are of the highest standard in the country.
In saying that, I recall, as a young law student, having been in a mooting competition in New South Wales and having seen what was then the brand new Supreme Court of New South Wales. I was waxing lyrical to an about-to-retire professor of law at Adelaide University who had grown up in Germany during the war. I was waxing lyrical about this wonderful facility in New South Wales, this great new court building, and he made a point that I will always remember. He said, "The standard of justice does not depend on the standard of buildings; the standard of justice depends on the quality of the judiciary". You can have all the paraphernalia and all the physical manifestations of a great justice system, but if you do not have good judges, if you do not have a judiciary that you have confidence in, you have nothing. That, in the ACT, is significant, because, although we have a very run-down infrastructure here and very poor facilities, historically we have been served by a very high standard of judiciary. It is pleasing that we have not had criticisms and controversies, by and large, in this Territory, and I would hope that we do not. I would hope that we do not, but we now have the provision to deal with it.
This legislation recognises a substantial amendment to our self-government Act, passed by the Commonwealth after a unanimous vote of this Assembly, which entrenches the independence of the judiciary in our constitutional arrangements. The self-government Act, which is our constitution, establishes the courts as the third arm of government, with the legislature and the Executive, and requires that there be a judicial commission, and that judges cannot be removed without a judicial commission process. We also sought to entrench the courts so that no Assembly can capriciously abolish the courts and do in judges that way. There has been controversy in Australia where governments at State and Federal level have abolished levels of courts, and there has been significant criticism from the legal profession and academia both at the issues surrounding Justice Staples and the recent - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .